holding that the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant unless it is conveyed to the person being detained
How later courts described this case
- holding that the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant unless it is conveyed to the person being detained
- noting that officer testified that his department's policy is to conduct national and local warrants checks of everyone police "contact" late at night
- finding community caretaker function justified brief inquiry into defendant’s condition, including name and identification
- applying same standard to issue of when consensual contact becomes seizure
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
The trial court denied a motion to suppress after hearing the testimony of witnesses and the presentations of the State and appellant. I would affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion.
We agree that the initial stop of appellant and all that occurred up to the officer asking him to wait at a street corner until he returned was appropriate and lawful. The majority of the court finds that asking appellant to wait, what turned out to be ten minutes, was an unlawful seizure in violation of constitutional guarantees against unlawful searches and seizures.
The bare bones of what occurred here was that the officer noticed appellant limping down the street, thought he had been injured, and asked if he could help him. He asked for I.D., which is an accepted standard procedure. Appellant produced his driver’s license. The officer called in for an NCIC report and was awaiting a response. He was also involved with directing traffic in the area of a fire which had been set by an arsonist. He asked appellant to await his return. I cannot see much difference between what occurred here and the usual course of accepted law enforcement activity.
It was claimed in appellant’s brief that the Casper police department has a practice of random stops of citizens, interrogation and investigation. I would not approve the practice, but that is not what is involved in this case.
Here there was real evidence that a crime may have been committed (arson). The fire department and police had been called to the scene. Efforts to put out the fire and investigate the cause were ongoing. Request for identification from those present at the scene and brief detention to receive a further report are not violations of constitutional guarantees.
I would affirm the order of the district court.